Voter Identification for Elections

Voter ID laws in the United States have begun to create controversy since the beginning of its adaptations in the early 2000’s. Voter ID laws in the United States is a law that requires U.S. citizens to have a special form of identification in order to vote in an election. The idea with Voter ID laws is that the state must make sure that the laws do not pose any sort of burden on the voters. These laws have been proposed in order to stop voting fraud. However, the institution of Voter ID laws have made trouble in states, including Texas, regarding to the various amount of identification requirements needed.

Voter ID Laws, now present in some form or another in thirty states, require individuals to show government-issued identification in order to cast a ballot on Election Day. The debate over the need for such laws has never been more important. Voter ID laws were brought to the forefront of American politics in the most recent presidential election as a result of President Elect Donald Trump’s insistence that the election process in America is riddled with wide-spread voter fraud. His claims of a “rigged election” were printed, broadcast, and proliferated through social media for the majority of his campaign. Such claims, if factual, should certainly be immediately rectified. The United States is built on the integrity of its election process and maintaining that integrity is paramount. The issue at hand is: Are these claims of widespread voter fraud fact or fiction? The key driver in the debate over Voter ID laws is whether or not such laws are intended to prevent voter fraud or whether the laws themselves are a form of government-endorsed fraud intended to suppress the vote of specific populations. The fact remains that neither the President Elect nor the states implementing Voter ID laws have been able to produce evidence of election rigging or widespread voter fraud. As such, without evidence of the need for the supposed protection from fraud that these laws are intended to provide, we can only conclude that such laws are not

Democrats, who almost unanimously oppose voter identification laws, strongly feel that minority groups of voters, who tend to vote Democratic, are more likely to not have the resources, knowledge, or means to have or obtain the necessary identification requirements for the polls. In a research project developed by Matt A. Barreto, Stephen A. Nuño, and Gabriel R. Sanchez, testing was conducted to “determine the rates of access to valid photo identification among voters and non-voters in Indiana, with an eye towards specific demographic groups, such as the elderly and racial minorities” (Barreto, Nuño, and Sanchez 112). Indiana was selected because of its strict voter identification law and for the ability to closely assess specific segments of the electorate under such a law. Their research method, using a random telephone survey of 1,000 registered and 500 non-registered voters, was conducted in a way that was unbiased and provided the most reliable and accurate results possible (Barreto, Nuño, and Sanchez

Our Voting System is clearly being corrupted. Problems identifying legitimate voters is much more serious than anyone is acknowledging. With identity scams on the rise, states are getting tougher on the identification requirements needed to vote. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that a provision of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional and those counties and states previously subjected to these laws did not need approval to make changes to their voter ID laws. Eight states passed voter ID laws that year. Since then three states Georgia, Indiana and Florida require photo ID’s, eighteen other states now require some form of identification (National Conference of State Legislatures), with the other 25 only requiring signatures. In lieu of all the voter ID fraud, is it imperative for states to put in place a Voter ID Law? Will these laws put a burden on the states citizens or will they become disenfranchised if they don’t have the proper ID (Rodriguez, US. Election Assistant Commission), and is it just another hurdle that voters will have to leap over to vote for who or what they believe in?

The IDs help from impersonation and that makes a lot of people confidence in the election process. They feel that it is important that voter’s proof of identity requirements is essential to avoid voter fraud and protect election honesty. By doing that many Americans don’t have the requirements to obtain a government voter Id because of low income. Many Americans don’t have the funds to pay for the mandatory documents needed to secure a government-issued photo ID. The people has the right to vote because its protected by more constitutional amendments. By putting restriction such as requiring Ids when many Americans can’t afford them leaving them out from voting

There are thirty states in the United States that require some form of official identification in order to register to vote and to vote for federal, state, and local elections. Voter identification laws ensure the integrity of elections by deterring impersonation fraud at the polls. Requiring a government-issued ID to vote will prevent voting under fake names or under the names of deceased voters, which according to The Pew Center of the States “more than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters”.

The necessity or redundancy of voter photo identification is a prominent topic in the news as the presidential election approaches. Multiple states in America require proper photo identification in order to vote, but not all agree with these laws. “Why New Photo ID Laws Mean Some Won't Vote” by PBS argues that photo identification laws prevent millions of Americans from voting due to the often difficult process of obtaining one. “Voter ID Should Be Required for Voting” by Chris Freind supports the opposite view, believing that photo identification laws ensure only American citizens are allowed to

The Limitation that has been placed since the creation of the Republic on voting were cruel. The Impact of the Revolution which was in part over the issue of voting. Though limitation was grounded on religion test by 1790 all states had eliminated religious requirement for voting. Though the Constitution left the voting matter to the states to deal with. Certain Stated restricted voting to those who owned property, eldest sons over the age 21, poll taxes, or paid high annual taxes, African American, and women were denied the right to vote, ethical and literacy test was conducted, and African American were omitted. Though Black was given the right to vote, the voting ballot was forfeited and if an African American did vote they were beaten to death or beaten.

A policy formulation has long been underway in the form of national identification in order to supplement the right to vote. The only surefire way to combat this problem would be a Federal ID card that would be given to ensure that every citizen who is eligible to vote can vote, regardless of their states' laws on the matter (Cohen, 2016). However, this would override the Shelby County v. Holder court case that granted the matter to each individual state (Oyez, 2016). They go on to suggest that the Federal Government step back in and make it a right for all citizens to vote as they did during the Civil Rights Movement (Cohen, 2016). At the very least, the government should fund more programs itself in order to help mitigate the cost of obtaining identification. In Texas, some people have to drive up to 100 miles or more to obtain an identification card. While some groups have aided with this effort, I believe the state of Texas or the Federal government could easily mitigate the stress put on low-income and minority groups by creating a program to help more people vote (Ari, 2016). While other methods have been proposed, the literature review has shown that the Federal ID card is most likely to gain the most traction. Yet again, with the partisanship so divided, it would be hard to pass a bill such as this in a

One of the primary causes for low voter turnout in the United States is low voter registration. In order to vote in state, local, or federal elections, citizens are required to be registered by a certain date before the election. People can register in person, by visiting a state-affiliated election facility, or by mailing their registration forms, postmarked no later than the registration date. Additionally, only 31 states including the District of Columbia give voters the option of registering online. Considering this fact and that we are living in an age with great technological advances, 31 states is far too few. Hence, New York’s inability to modernize voter registration and reach out to new voters effectively lowers the number of registered

Throughout the most recent ten years voter ID appears to have turned out to be a greater amount of an issue. States utilizing such measures say it's a sensible aversion for misrepresentation. There is some legitimacy to requiring voter ID as an obstacle, yet as indicated by the Carter-Baker Commission, voter misrepresentation is negligible (Underhill, 2011). Voters must be enrolled in any case, so these sorts of laws appear to be roundabout deduction in real life. Texas is a decent case of why voter ID laws are a misuse of citizen's chance and cash. Over a 10 year time frame, they've just sentenced 150 fakes in a condition of 25 million individuals (Cohen, 2012). The preferred standpoint to such laws are little. A much bigger worry about the

The news clip this week breaks the voter ID topic down into two separate issues. The first being the requirement to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote in the United States and the second, the requirement to show photo identification at the polls. I consider both requirements reasonable and therefore feel that these stipulations should be implemented in all states.

The method he used to gather data was to ask voters over the internet about their experience while casting a ballot during the 2006 general election and again in the 2008 primaries. It is also pointed out that Ansolabehere is testing the effects of photographic identification requirements on restricting individuals from voting. (Ansolabehere). One conclusion that Ansolabehere made was, “Although the debate over this issue is often draped in the language of the civil and voting rights movements, voter ID appears to present no real barrier to access” (Ansolabehere). This observation is in agreement with both studies presented previously. However, this study made an additional observation about restricting access to minority individuals when it comes to voter ID laws. This study found that “In the 2008 Super Tuesday primary states, 53% of whites were asked to show photo ID, compared with 58% of Hispanics and a staggering 73% of African Americans” (Ansolabehere). Although this static should raise red flags about underlying prejudice in the admittance of minorities, Ansolabehere makes a related observation. He states “In the 2006 survey, out of 22,211 voters only 25 said that they were asked for identification

The main argument against requiring voter ID is that some people cannot afford it, and those people mainly vote Democratic, creating a large gap in the voting numbers. Surprisingly 25% of blacks, and 16% of Hispanics do not have a photo ID compared to 9% whites (Everything). Daudig’s graph presents racial data and age groups who do not have a valid photo ID. It shows how much we would lose if we made photo ID the standard for a voter ID. 11% of the votes would be lost, and the majority of which would

“Given that someone who is dead, is in jail, or has moved isn’t likely to complain if someone votes in his name, how do we know that voter fraud at the polls isn’t a problem?” (Fund, 1) With the amount of the general public that have been held accountable for committing voter fraud I can say that it exists. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is an organization that, while it intentions are for the good and public, has been known for participating in several cases of criminal activities, during election their members are arrested for voter